Age Neutral Design

[John Bauer]

Off Topic Alert (I bet you'd be surprised! @John Bauer seems to want to know EVERYTHING, and has gone a long way down that road.)

Not everything about everything, though. :þ

I strive to know “everything” about only three areas: soteriology, origins, and theological anthropology.

 

[makesends]

Not everything about everything, though. :þ

I strive to know “everything” about only three areas: soteriology, origins, and theological anthropology.

Well, getting there, then, you've learned about computers, cults, cosmology and the scales on dinosaur knees.

 

[John Bauer]

Well, getting there, then, you've learned about computers, cults, cosmology and the scales on dinosaur knees.

I know a fair bit about computers because, long before my truck-driver days, I used to have a career working with and around computers, from building computers to tech support (helping customers with email client setup, TCP/IP settings, etc.).

And I don’t know much about cults, but I do know a little bit—because I have family members caught up in that.

But I know a lot about cosmology due to origins, one of the three areas I strive to know “everything” about.

(I have no idea what “the scales on dinosaur knees” refers to.)

 

[Arial]

Like you suggested, I have the vigor and insatiable curiosity of youth (although that has been in my rear view mirror for a while now).

Trust me on this. By the time you reach 60 you will look back on your current age as "So very young!" And that does not imply that you will feel old, only that your perspective has changed. When I turned 60, I did not feel the least bit old, and I still don't feel old. I just know that the number says I am.

Personally, I can’t see why you would get that sense. If the entire history of creation flows from the eternal decree—including the eventual appearance of image-bearers on the world stage—then there is no “decision shift” in God. Something that is comprehended by us as temporally successive is nevertheless eternally unified in the divine will. God does not change; the economy (οἰκονομία) unfolds as the temporal execution of his eternal decree.

Well, yes, it is correct that if God created man pre-Adam but not as image bearers or covenantally, then what you say would be correct and I would not have the sense of God doing something one way and then deciding to redo it another way. But I don't know that that position is correct. That is where the sense I mentioned comes into play.

Again, the creation account doesn’t say it was uninhabitable. That is not what tohu wa-bohu means.

The creation account however does show God preparing Earth to be suitable for life and his purpose for Adam-man.

 

[makesends]

(I have no idea what “the scales on dinosaur knees” refers to.)

A bit of comic relief: I'm saying you know about many details nobody even thinks of.

 

[makesends]

John Bauer said:
(I have no idea what “the scales on dinosaur knees” refers to.)

A bit of comic relief: I'm saying you know about many details nobody even thinks of.

I had a nephew who was much like you as far as absorbing vast amounts of knowledge. When he died in an accident, it occurred to me (months later) that, like when Spock died in the Star Trek movie, "All that knowledge is lost, then." "NO!!! He had to have found a way...!"

I should not have mentioned that to my sister (his mother).

 

[John Bauer]

I had a nephew who was much like you as far as absorbing vast amounts of knowledge. When he died in an accident, it occurred to me (months later) that, like when Spock died in the Star Trek movie, "All that knowledge is lost, then." "NO!!! He had to have found a way...!"

I am writing a memoir for my two boys, which also includes chapters on soteriology, origins, and theological anthropology and all my thoughts and ideas on those subjects. The amount of knowledge I am carting around should not disappear with me.

 

[Tambora]

If someone thinks they can prove without a doubt either view, I challenge you.

Oh boy, a challenge!

Spoiler: The category

This will fall into the same category as flat earth which almost any good Hebrew language scholar will say is how the scriptures do describe the earth (flat, sitting on pillars, with water above and below).
And scholars will usually follow that up with a statement like: "The Bible is not a science book so don't try and make it something it is not intended to be. "
And a flat earth is what ancient people believed and God didn't seem to have a problem with them believing that and could still use them regardless of their "science" beliefs.

Now on to the challenge.


Scripture wise, I believe this to be the best indication of young earth ........

There are several places in scripture (like the one below) that tell of what mankind can do and not do on the 7 days of the week.
The Israelites would know what a week of 7 days was.

Exodus 20:9-11​

(9) Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,​

(10) but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.​

(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.​

Since the LORD compared their 7 day week with the 7 days of creation, why on earth would they ever think it wasn't a 7 day period like their week of 7 days was?

I have heard people say, God created the earth (universe) to look old. Well, I really do not think so. That reminds me of when I used to try to find something ridiculous to help me out to believe the earth is young and man and dinosaurs ran around together.

One could always fall back on the lame excuse of: "It's a mystery to us".

Is there anything besides "science" that would cause anyone to believe the earth was not created within 6 days?
One would think that a global flood would have caused a lot of stuff to look "unnatural".

On the other hand, there are several good Hebrew language scholars that admit Genesis 1:1 most likely should read "When God created the heavens and earth". (leaving out "in the beginning")
Which leaves room for differing timelines.

But ......... as stated in the spoiler above, scripture is a theology book, not a science book, so the 7 days of creation doesn't need to fall under the category of "science" and God can still get His point across no matter what your "science" beliefs are.


But that's just me trying to make sense of it along with everyone else.

 

[makesends]

That reminds me of when I used to try to find something ridiculous to help me out to believe the earth is young and man and dinosaurs ran around together.

It could well be argued that there are still dinosaurs around today. I saw a picture once a missionary took of a lizard in the Amazon that looked a little like a Monitor lizard, and apparently around the same size, but it stood taller on its four legs. We have alligators, crocodiles, caimans, and smaller representatives of such lizards. We have Sturgeon. And that is stuff we know of. There may even have been flying lizards not so long ago. Who knows what we DON'T know of. I've seen enough myself in South America to think we are still pretty ignorant.

 

[Carbon]

Oh boy, a challenge!

Spoiler: The category

This will fall into the same category as flat earth which almost any good Hebrew language scholar will say is how the scriptures do describe the earth (flat, sitting on pillars, with water above and below).
And scholars will usually follow that up with a statement like: "The Bible is not a science book so don't try and make it something it is not intended to be. "
And a flat earth is what ancient people believed and God didn't seem to have a problem with them believing that and could still use them regardless of their "science" beliefs.

Now on to the challenge.


Scripture wise, I believe this to be the best indication of young earth ........

There are several places in scripture (like the one below) that tell of what mankind can do and not do on the 7 days of the week.
The Israelites would know what a week of 7 days was.

Exodus 20:9-11​

(9) Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,​

(10) but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.​

(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.​

Since the LORD compared their 7 day week with the 7 days of creation, why on earth would they ever think it wasn't a 7 day period like their week of 7 days was?


One could always fall back on the lame excuse of: "It's a mystery to us".

Is there anything besides "science" that would cause anyone to believe the earth was not created within 6 days?
One would think that a global flood would have caused a lot of stuff to look "unnatural".

On the other hand, there are several good Hebrew language scholars that admit Genesis 1:1 most likely should read "When God created the heavens and earth". (leaving out "in the beginning")
Which leaves room for differing timelines.

But ......... as stated in the spoiler above, scripture is a theology book, not a science book, so the 7 days of creation doesn't need to fall under the category of "science" and God can still get His point across no matter what your "science" beliefs are.


But that's just me trying to make sense of it along with everyone else.

Well, you're doing an okay job; if that works for you, great.
But I asked if you can prove it? You haven't even tried yet.

Let me repeat something.

The Bible does not teach a young earth. As one professor said, whether the sun and moon were created or placed on day 4 makes no difference in trying to prove an age. The days of creation have already been established, and we just do not have a way for measuring time, for example, days 1-3, from a human point of view. They are simply days of an indeterminate length from our human point of view; these days were established before there were even days of keeping time from a human point of view.

And are you trying to say or prove that the only way the Israelites would or could know that there are seven days in a week is because God established a week of seven days, creating the earth in exactly 7 24-hour days?
Let's stop right here for now, shall we? You have some proving to do. I'll be waiting.

 

[Carbon]

It could well be argued that there are still dinosaurs around today. I saw a picture once a missionary took of a lizard in the Amazon that looked a little like a Monitor lizard, and apparently around the same size, but it stood taller on its four legs. We have alligators, crocodiles, caimans, and smaller representatives of such lizards. We have Sturgeon. And that is stuff we know of. There may even have been flying lizards not so long ago. Who knows what we DON'T know of. I've seen enough myself in South America to think we are still pretty ignorant.

Hey, I agree with the animals you mentioned. We have been told they are dinosaurs, and why would I disagree? When I say dinosaurs, I mean Tyrannosaurus and the like.

 

[John Bauer]

Scripture wise, I believe this to be the best indication of young earth:

There are several places in scripture (like the one below) that tell of what mankind can do and not do on the seven days of the week. The Israelites would know what a week of 7 days was. …

Since the LORD compared their seven-day week with the seven days of creation, why on earth would they ever think it wasn't a seven-day period like their week of seven days was?

That does not prove the earth is young—or old, for that matter. It proves nothing either way.

Keep going.

This will fall into the same category as flat earth which almost any good Hebrew language scholar will say is how the scriptures do describe the earth (flat, sitting on pillars, with water above and below).

And scholars will usually follow that up with a statement like: "The Bible is not a science book so don't try and make it something it is not intended to be."

And a flat earth is what ancient people believed and God didn't seem to have a problem with them believing that and could still use them regardless of their "science" beliefs.

See attached image. And I am in full agreement. God also never corrected their belief that we think with our kidneys or entrails.

One could always fall back on the lame excuse of, "It's a mystery to us."

One could, sure, but that likewise wouldn’t prove the earth is young—or old.

Is there anything besides "science" that would cause anyone to believe the earth was not created within 6 days?

That depends on what “created” means, and whether it corresponds with how Genesis 1 uses it.

One would think that a global flood would have caused a lot of stuff to look "unnatural".

If only one had occurred.

There are several good Hebrew language scholars that admit Genesis 1:1 most likely should read, "When God created the heavens and earth" (leaving out "in the beginning").

Which scholars are those? I am aware of the argument for translating it as, “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth”—and that is my preferred reading—but I am not aware of any that suggest jettisoning “in the beginning” entirely from the text.

 

[Tambora]

Well, you're doing an okay job; if that works for you, great.
But I asked if you can prove it? You haven't even tried yet.

Let me repeat something.

The Bible does not teach a young earth. As one professor said, whether the sun and moon were created or placed on day 4 makes no difference in trying to prove an age. The days of creation have already been established, and we just do not have a way for measuring time, for example, days 1-3, from a human point of view. They are simply days of an indeterminate length from our human point of view; these days were established before there were even days of keeping time from a human point of view.

And are you trying to say or prove that the only way the Israelites would or could know that there are seven days in a week is because God established a week of seven days, creating the earth in exactly 7 24-hour days?
Let's stop right here for now, shall we? You have some proving to do. I'll be waiting.

No. I'm saying that since God told the Jews to work 6 days of the week and rest on the 7th day of the week was because that's what God did (worked 6 days and rested on the 7th).

Exodus 20:9-11​

(9) Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,​

(10) but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.​

(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.​

This same thing is repeated several times throughout scripture.
By telling them that, why would they assume it was not the same time span?
God never made a distinction of time between their 7 days and His 7 days.
He said you guys do it this way because I did it this way.

The Bible does not teach a young earth.

I agree with that.
We don't have any idea what existed (or how long it existed) before God began to mold molecules into the heavens and earth to the specifications He wanted at the time.
It also doesn't teach earth as a spinning ball that circles the sun.
Which is why it is good to remind folks not to try and turn the Bible into something it was not meant to be (ie. a science book).

 

[Tambora]

That does not prove the earth is young—or old, for that matter. It proves nothing either way.

I might disagree that the earth is old, but I have no objection to things like molecules being old.
Or at least that's the way I lean now.
Mainly because I want to teach scripture the way scripture reads.
And when God says work 6 days and rest on the 7th day like I, Myself, did (and keep it that way for a memorial).
So when someone asks me how many days it took God to mold the heavens and earth I'm gonna say 6 days and HE rested on the 7th and that is the way he wanted the Jews to do also,

See attached image. And I am in full agreement. God also never corrected their belief that we think with our kidneys or entrails.

Right.
I remember being a little taken back when my Hebrew language professor mentioned that ancient Hebrew didn't have a word for "brain".
God didn't seem to have a problem with their lack of knowledge but just used the words and customs they were already used to using at the time.
I mean it wasn't like God told Moses he needed to take an advanced science class before he penned scripture.


Gotta get some sleep.
I'm old.
I'll try and join the conversation again tomorrow to discuss further.
There's a lot packed into Genesis chapter 1 that we can kick around and offer viewpoints.

 

[John Bauer]

God says, “Work six days and rest on the seventh day like I did—and keep it that way for a memorial.”

That does not prove the earth is young—or old, for that matter. Let me show you:

• “Yes, God created in six days—but when?”

See?

 

[makesends]

Hey, I agree with the animals you mentioned. We have been told they are dinosaurs, and why would I disagree? When I say dinosaurs, I mean Tyrannosaurus and the like.

My point being, if we can agree that they indeed did exist, why do we need to insist that they are an extinct, old world (>6000 years), order?

 

[Carbon]

I agree with that.

Well thats good.

We don't have any idea what existed (or how long it existed) before God began to mold molecules into the heavens and earth to the specifications He wanted at the time.

It also doesn't teach earth as a spinning ball that circles the sun.

But its obvious, isnt it?

Which is why it is good to remind folks not to try and turn the Bible into something it was not meant to be (ie. a science book).

No, that would'nt be good.

But keep in mind, true and correct science agrees with scripture, it has to.

 

[Tambora]

But its obvious, isnt it?

It wasn't obvious to the men who penned scripture.

But keep in mind, true and correct science agrees with scripture, it has to.

Nah.
Virgin birth, sun standing still, dead bodies rising from graves, rods turning into snakes, Sampson's uncut hair being the means of his strength, talking donkey, water instantly turning into wine, etc etc etc.

 

[Carbon]

It wasn't obvious to the men who penned scripture.


Nah.
Virgin birth, sun standing still, dead bodies rising from graves, rods turning into snakes, Sampson's uncut hair being the means of his strength, talking donkey, water instantly turning into wine, etc etc etc.

Okay fine,

But still waiting for proof.